Louis Gohmert: Weapons Grade Asshole

If you’ve ever watched C-SPAN’s coverage of Congress you know that nearly every legislator begins every speech by saying “I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.” This is so that they can insert material into the Congressional Record later. And unanimous consent is always given. But not anymore. Louis Gohmert broke one of the primary unwritten rules of civility in the House:

“Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it will increase hunger in America,” Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) said.

Although requests to “revise and extend” remarks are routine, Gohmert immediate shouted, “Objection!”

Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-IL) next asked permission to “revise and extend” his remarks in opposition to the farm bill “because it takes food nutrition away from working families.”

“Objection!” Gohmert yelled.

“What he is doing is he is not even giving members on our side the courtesy inserting their statement in the record?” Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) asked.

As several more Democratic representatives attempted to insert remarks that the bill “hurts the working poor” and “increases hunger and poverty,” Gohmert repeatedly objected.

“I think it is extremely unfortunate that that members on the other side of the aisle would deny members on this side of the aisle the ability to insert written materials in the record,” McGovern noted. “In all my years here, I’ve never seen such uncourteous gesture.”

A little man and a little prince, he just figured out that he has a little power over others and uses it because he can. If your goal is to make Fox news highlight real this is fine but if you went to Washington to govern then you’re doing it wrong.

Can he only object to extending remarks after the actual speech? If so could they get round this by literally reading out whatever they want to add, taking turns if necessary, and requiring Mr Gohmert to stay in the room throughout?

donalbain

I assume he never wants to extend his remarks in the future.

Ben P

Can he only object to extending remarks after the actual speech? If so could they get round this by literally reading out whatever they want to add, taking turns if necessary, and requiring Mr Gohmert to stay in the room throughout?

The problem is that there are so many assholes here in Texas who think that Gohmert, Cruz and Perry are heroes for being assholes. I read a comment by one in my local paper yesterday who said that since we’re getting a lot of rain this week, Perry and his “pray for rain” act must have succeeded, so he’s a great governor.

eric

Because what we really need is more acrimony, congressional majorities that listen less to minorities. This will now likely become another tool that both sides use and both sides complain about when the other uses it.

So some people do not consider him a small man, but instead a hot piece of man-cake. Myself, I can’t see it. But maybe the conservative women of Politichicks, those paragons of traditional values, have seen it and size matters to them. Maybe he really is a dick and human dildo.

D. C. Sessions

Gohmert is truly an asshole.

That’s one of the things that keeps his constituents sending him back term after term.

Robert B.

Because that’s how you become an effective politician, by pissing everyone off for minimal gain.

This has been the Republican M.O. since around ’94 when Newt took power. Congress has always operated through long-standing norms and gentlemen’s agreements that both sides adhere to in order to get things done. Then the Republicans discovered that they could gain tactical advantage by violating these norms or abusing them to obstruct the other side. And every session they’ve gotten more audacious and arrogant about it until we’re now to the point where the Congress and Senate are totally dysfunctional.

Michael Heath

Area Man writes:

This has been the Republican M.O. since around ’94 when Newt took power. Congress has always operated through long-standing norms and gentlemen’s agreements that both sides adhere to in order to get things done. Then the Republicans discovered that they could gain tactical advantage by violating these norms or abusing them to obstruct the other side. And every session they’ve gotten more audacious and arrogant about it until we’re now to the point where the Congress and Senate are totally dysfunctional.

I disagree. Conservatives have played obstructionists well prior to becoming dominant in the GOP. E.g., conservative obstructionism during the Jim Crow era, where conservatives in both parties were able to filibuster any attempts to protect black people’s rights equal to whites; for 75 years.

The change over the past few decades is that conservatives have all migrated to the GOP and now dominate it, not that Republicans learned to obstruct. This is all about ideology, not partisanship; as we see the Tea Partiers eat their fellow Republicans if they’re not conservative enough.